Because the

overarching objectives of forest restoration are frequently to influence ecological processes such as disturbance regimes and habitat connectivity operating at very large spatial scales (10,000’s–100,000’s of ha), a broader spatial perspective is required to evaluate the overall magnitude of ecological and planning needs. Without an understanding of regional scale restoration needs it is difficult to accurately quantify the magnitude of Bortezomib molecular weight restoration funding needs for state and national entities or to set the context for prioritization of limited land management resources. It is also difficult to determine the cumulative, regional scale impact of current restoration efforts and evaluate whether these efforts are “making a difference”. Consequently, evaluation of restoration needs requires a perspective larger than individual watersheds or even individual national forests, and that

considers forested lands across all ownerships within a region. In this study we demonstrate a new approach for evaluating where, how much, and what types of treatments are currently needed to restore a Natural Range of Variability Duvelisib concentration (NRV) in forest structure across eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and southwestern Oregon. NRV is defined as a frequency distribution of ecosystem characteristics, including the appropriate spatial and temporal scales for those distributions and a reference period, typically prior to European settlement. These ecosystem characteristics may encompass a wide suite of terrestrial and aquatic considerations (Keane et al., 2009, Landres et al., 1999, Morgan et al., 1994 and USDA Forest Service, 2012a); here we focus on forest Oxymatrine structure. We acknowledge the limitations of focusing on forest structure as an indicator of ecosystem health, and the NRV as the reference condition. Many biotic and abiotic components must be considered for

comprehensive restoration of forest ecosystems, including forest structure. Nevertheless, forest structure presents a tractable coarse filter to which many other aspects of biodiversity (e.g., terrestrial wildlife habitat, riparian and aquatic habitat, herbaceous diversity and productivity, and fire, insect, and disease frequency and severity) respond (Agee, 1993, Hessburg et al., 1999, Johnson and O’Neil, 2001 and Peterson et al., 2005). Ideally, we would also evaluate future range of variability (FRV) reference conditions that describe the expected response of forest ecosystems to climate change (Gartner et al., 2008 and Keane et al., 2009). FRV is an emerging concept, but FRV reference models are not yet consistently available at a regional scale. While the specific impacts of climate change are uncertain, restoring to a NRV is assumed to increase forests’ resilience and adaptive capacity (Agee, 2003, Hessburg et al., 1999, Keane et al., 2009, Millar et al., 2007, Stephens et al., 2013 and Stine et al., in press).